Condemned by History cleanup thread

In other words: we've had this discussion, rather a long time ago, and there is consensus that the trope page should continue to exist but that it needs a lot of maintenance. That maintenance work is going on in this very thread.

Jumping in at the end of a 58-page discussion just to invalidate all this work strikes me as rather arrogant.

edited 22nd May '18 6:26:11 AM by GnomeTitan

Except I’m not the first person in this thread to suggest a cut.

I never said you were, and I can agree that there's a case for a cut, but consensus is against a cut and I feel it's disrespectful to all the people spending a lot of energy maintaining the trope to try to change that.

To put it another way, there's a case to be made for a cut, but as the current consensus runs keep, the onus is on you to make that case, and you're not doing that.

"Show me an example of the trope done right" is not making a case, it's begging the question, because of course there is already a page full of such examples.

Linking to a post made a full year ago is not making the case.

Are you interested in actually making a case? We're listening.

edited 22nd May '18 12:00:27 PM by HighCrate

My concern is that with all the examples that were cut (and are still being cut), the remaining examples are mere coincidences, making it Too Rare to Trope.

edited 29th May '18 10:05:29 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

That could be, considering how few examples the page currently has, but it seems weird that something this basic would be Too Rare To Trope (a separate issue from any complaining problems).

I don't follow the logic that applying very strict standards somehow makes the remaining examples that fit those standards LESS likely to be valid examples instead of MORE.

edited 29th May '18 9:34:40 AM by HighCrate

To put it another way, the standards are so strict now that even examples that have already been greenlit are being questioned (see ADrago’s recommendation regarding Nickelback on the previous page), suggesting that the goalposts have moved. At what point do we cut our losses?

edited 29th May '18 10:15:39 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

I think the “personal scandal” rule seems to be really cramping this down.

On a related note: Roseanne, anyone?

We.

Don't.

Trope.

People.

That's not a Deader Than Disco rule, it's a site-wide rule, and far beyond the scope of this thread.

Then can you explain why we still allow real life sections (which can include people) on some tropes? (Not that I think Roseanne counts as an example for this trope or want to start a Flame War.)

Troping real people us not allowed there, either. But it’s allowed to have examples that involve real people. ”Troping real people” means applying tropes to their private lives or their personalities.

Understandable.

i think it's too early to call Roseanne DTD for either the actress or the show.

It's not only a matter of "too soon."

Deader Than Disco means that the audience retroactively decided that the work is bad. Not the person making it. The work itself.

If the general public were to reevaluate Roseanne, the show, and decide, "Oh, man, turns out this was never actually any good. How did we not see it?" then one could make a case for DTD. I see no signs of that actually happening, though.

Now, if the general public were to turn against the show on the basis, "Man, it sure is hard to enjoy this show now that I know that the lead actress is kind of a racist shitbag," that might be an example of Overshadowed by Controversy, but it wouldn't be Deader Than Disco.

See the difference?

I made a post about this a couple years back, although I don't think this web series had reached full DTD status then. And now that he appears to have left YouTube for good, can LeafyIsHere be included on the page? I've never seen a youtuber go from a massive fanbase and routinely imitated to a punchline like this.

As for the "people retroactively decided it's horrible", his fanbase was mainly younger teens who have moved on to other content creators and are now rather embarrassed by liking him (I never liked him, but at the time I was big, I was in the distinct minority). Most of the youtubers who got their start by copying him, as well, have either disappeared or changed their content style in order to distance theirselves from him as much as possible.

Possible reasons to the downfall include: the content cop, Youtube not wanting to have such a notorious bully as the face of their webpage, his lazy content, scamming people who contributed to him out of their money (Is $20 OK?) etc.

I'm still inclined to feel like Youtube personalities are not nearly well-known enough to qualify for this trope. I literally could not even begin to guess who this person is.

Seconded.

I'd make a case for Onision but that's probably better placed under Overshadowed by Controversy too.

NVM — already removed by someone else

Someone added a post for Sonic Mania in the video games which not only reads like a huge complaint instead of a page entry, it also is about a game that is just barely a year old and is actually generally well-liked (the Sonic Mania Adventures animated series I know for sure is pretty popular).

Edited by FromtheWordsofBR on Jul 17th 2018 at 9:46:07 AM

Aaaaand the page is locked...

Wel after watching some informative videos about Lefy Is Here on Youtube I think it might be a straight example. Of course the issue will be if Youtube is considered too much of niche to not qualify for the "general" part.

By means of informative video, does that include the video by EmperorLemon? If so, then it's also a case of Screwed by the Network by Youtube on Leafy.

Edited by alnair20aug93 on Aug 17th 2018 at 4:50:10 PM

The page is unlocked now.

I still think the "universally loved" and popular thing is limiting the trope too much. No work is ever "universally loved" or known by everyone. I think YouTube personalities, if popular enough, can still qualify.

Also, I found this on the Jonas Brothers' entry: "Unfortunately for them, they also built up a massive hatedom on the internet right from the get-go, and as the girls that flocked to them grew older and moved on to other things, eventually only the hatedom remained." Isn't this the same reason Twilight was cut? I still believe Twilight qualifies, since it used to be very popular and is now seen as a tired punchline and few will still admit to liking it.